CNN Legal Analyst Fails on Legal Analysis

Unconstitutional Overreach By Baton Rouge Police

Under Cuccinelli, Virginia Won't Be For Lovers

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Indiana Marriage Law UPDATE

From Bilerco: 

Without an intent to fraudulently obtain a marriage license, there is no crime in question. Proving intent to defraud the state to obtain an illegal marriage would be a stiff burden for any prosecutor to take on, especially with a civil disobedience/protest defense available. What's more, even if such a case were miraculously successful, there are a great many avenues of appeal that would almost certainly overturn any conviction of this type. 

It has always been illegal for a clerk or other official to accept knowingly false information to issue a marriage license (or other government permit or document) so, again, nothing new here except a lesser penalty for the infraction. 

Indiana has not created new laws with regard to same-sex marriage and the changes to existing law do not change the legal landscape other than to lower the penalties for infractions of this law. This new concern doesn't stem from new law, but the confluence of a 1997 law criminalizing false information on a marriage application, the 2003 law banning same-sex marriage in Indiana, and the slow-moving modernization efforts, which have been ongoing for nearly a decade (and which has not rolled out to all of Indiana's 92 counties.) 

What this incident actually proves is a bigger point about how these marriage bans are mean-spirited and discriminatory in addition to not being well thought out. It says a lot about the unintended consequences of such laws when two loving people, who simply want to share a life together, have to worry about potentially breaking the law just to ask to be married.

Since this blog had mentioned the story where it seemed that Indiana had taken some draconian measures against same-sex couples reminiscent of what is happening in parts of Africa, it's only fitting that the clarification also appears here. 

Maddow Calls Homophobes Out on Gay-Shaming

Texas "Justice" Becomes an Oxymoron

Majority Of Doctors Are Pro-Medical Marijuana

From Think Progress: 

The survey finds that 76 percent of doctors in the U.S. and 78 percent of doctors internationally would personally prescribe medical marijuana to a fictional 68-year-old woman with deteriorating cancer. 

In commentary published along with the survey, researchers explained the reasoning that most respondents provided for their support of medicinal cannabis. “Many [respondents] pointed out the known dangers of prescription narcotics, supported patient choice, or described personal experience with patients who benefited from the use of marijuana,” wrote the authors. Studies have shown that medical marijuana can relieve pain, ease nausea, and promote appetite, making it a promising treatment option for Americans with painful or chronic medical conditions such as cancer.

~

Patient advocacy organizations and doctors’ groups such as the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians have called on the government to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I controlled substance in order to facilitate more research into the drug’s effectiveness. Even government organizations such as the National Cancer Institute, which is under the National Institutes of Health, have found that using cannabis may have health benefits, including the potential to fight breast and colorectal cancer.

An Anti-Gay Law Group's Losing Argument

From Think Progress: 

As the Delaware Senate debated a marriage equality bill earlier this month, opponents brought ADF [Alliance Defense Fund] senior counsel Jordan Lorence to the floor to offer testimony. Lorence noted a case in New Mexico (a state which don’t even allow same-sex marriage), in which an anti-gay vendor had faced legal action after violating state civil rights laws, and suggested that he believes such public accommodations laws are unconstitutional. “It’s the business owners that deal with weddings. It’s licensed professionals having their licenses threatened because they believe the wrong things about marriage,” he told the Senators. 

Delaware state Sen. Dave Sokola (D), lead Senate sponsor of the bill, told ThinkProgress that Lorence’s right-to-discriminate arguments actually helped solidify support for the bill:

We had recently added “sexual orientation” to our non-discrimination statute in 2009, and debated and passed Civil Unions just 2 years ago. Even with a large turn-over in both the House and Senate, this issue was very fresh in many of our minds. Equality Delaware did a tremendous outreach to all, with a special emphasis on our newer legislators, so there was sufficient understanding of the matter, and I do think he just firmed up the positions of all on the prevailing side. We also now have a 4-year track record of how Delaware businesses are doing with respect to this, and the predictions of our opponents have not come true since we enacted either of the previous bills. The facts have significantly diminished their credibility.

Lorence also made this argument to the Delaware House of Representatives. Sokola’s House counterpart, Rep. Melanie Smith (D), told ThinkProgress: “I believe he was mistaken in much of what he said and misrepresented the bill significantly.” She added that as far as she knew, “no votes were swayed by his testimony.” The bill passed both chambers and was signed into law by Gov. Jack Markell (D).

They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. It is way past time for ADF to get their heads checked.

Man Arrested At Hospital For Refusing To Leave Gay Partner

From Raw Story: 

A gay man was arrested at a hospital in Missouri this week when he refused to leave the bedside of his partner, and now a restraining order is preventing him from any type of visitation. 

Roger Gorley told WDAF that even though he has power of attorney to handle his partner’s affairs, a family member asked him to leave when he visited Research Medical Center in Kansas City on Tuesday. 

Gorley said he refused to leave his partner Allen’s bedside, and that’s when security put him in handcuffs and escorted him from the building. 

“I was not recognized as being the husband, I wasn’t recognized as being the partner,” Gorley explained. 

He said the nurse refused to confirm that the couple shared power of attorney and made medical decision for each other...

This is why anti-gay marriage bans HAVE to go.

Progressives Challenging Obama On Drones

Rand Paul Shocks America By Being Right

Rand Paul is right, Obama is wrong, and Hell has frozen over.

Attorney Calls Lance Armstrong "Pathological"

What Is An Assault Weapon?

Two Men Acquitted of "Looking Gay"

From CNN:

"The acquittal of two Cameroonian men jailed for looking gay because they wore women's clothes exposes the systematic discrimination against perceived homosexuals in the country," Amnesty International said in a statement.

The conviction was based on stereotypes because authorities never saw them engage in homosexual acts, according to their lawyer.

 

"The judge who originally sentenced them had stated that the way they dressed, the way they spoke, and the fact that they drank Bailey's Irish Cream proved they were gay," their lawyer, Alice N'Kom, told global gay rights group All Out, which launched a petition demanding the men's release.

The court overturned the conviction Monday, but it was unclear whether they have left prison.

Homosexuality is illegal in Cameroon, where sodomy laws were introduced during colonialism. Sentences for homosexual acts vary between six months to five years.

If drinking Bailey's Irish Cream proves people are gay, then there were zero straight guys in my fraternity.

Catholic Legal Group Shows Desire To Discriminate

From Think Progress:

The harms noted above do not begin to address the suffering of your constituents who must participate in and support same-sex unions: small bed & breakfast owners who would be forced to rent out their home for same-sex wedding weekends; solo photographers who would be forced to spend hours photographing and designing albums for same-sex wedding ceremonies that they believe to be sinful; family catering company owners being forced to prepare, feed, serve, and support same-sex wedding receptions, even though the family members oppose those receptions with every fiber of their being. In other states, such businesses have been fined and subject to injunctions, some even permanently shutting down to avoid legal penalty.
A “yes” vote will inflict these harms, all for the sake of giving the title “married” to some number of the fewer than 1% of Illinois households headed by same-sex couples.

It’s interesting how conservative groups are growing more blunt about their intent to discriminate. No interpretation is required to discern the present argument: people will suffer if they have to provide basic services to same-sex couples. This is a petulant attempt to preserve a superior status for heterosexuality while forcing same-sex families into the shadows. More importantly, the argument is irrelevant — it’s already illegal under the Illinois Human Rights Act to discriminate against anyone because of their sexual orientation when providing public services. This is just as true now with civil unions legal as it would be when marriage equality passes.

Given that increasing numbers of Catholics are actually for marriage equality (like the rest of society), the Catholic church is increasingly out of the mainstream. No wonder there are so many "lapsed Catholics" and people leaving the Catholic church...well, that and the whole pedophile-priest debacle.

House GOP Lets "Violence Against Women Act" Die

From The New Civil Rights Movement:

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) killed the decades-old Violence Against Women Act  yesterday when — like the Hurricane Sandy victims aid bill — they refused to bring the bill to the floor for a vote. Yesterday was the last day of the 112th Congress, so any bills not passed will have to start from scratch. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), created in 1994, has always been renewed in a no-muss, no-fuss bipartisan manner — until now. The U.S. Senate expanded the bill last spring to include protections for immigrants, lesbian and trans women, and Native Americas, so Republicans balked, refusing for months to vote on the bill. Now, state and local governments will see resources to protect women disappear, literally overnight...

Eric Cantor is seen by some as the major road block of the bill, especially opposed to the Native Americans protections.

Craziest GOP Legislative Proposals Of 2012

From Think Progress:

1. Outlawing the dollar.

Washington state lawmakers introduced a bill that would have outlawed the paper dollar, because “only gold and silver may be recognized as government legal tender.” This is just part and parcel of the extreme right’s continuing fascination with goldbuggery, a fascination to which the Republican party’s presidential candidates gladly pandered.

2. Striking the words ‘sea level rise.’

In Virginia, the Republican-led legislature commissioned a study to determine the impacts of man-made warming on the state’s shores, only to ban terms like “climate change” and “sea level rise,” deeming them “liberal code words.” And North Carolina Republicans voted to ignore studies that predict rapid sea level rise due to global warming.

5. Allowing citizens to shoot at cops.

The NRA pushed Republicans in Indiana to pass a law that allows any citizen to open fire on a “public servant” for “unlawful intrusion.” Police fear this means a citizen could shoot at a cop, then claim the cop was trying to enter his or her property.

Gun Nuts STILL Not Getting It

Twitter Watch: Gun Law Logic

The Daily Beast: Impeach Scalia

First, let’s stipulate that people are entitled to be crackpots. They are entitled to hold absurd viewpoints; and in the United States, thanks to the First Amendment, they are even entitled to express them. 

But an associate justice on the United States Supreme Court has to play by different rules. We elect presidents and members of Congress precisely because of their political views; but we appoint judges only if we believe they will make every effort to transcend them. If they cannot or will not, it’s Congress’s job to take them out of the game. In Justice Scalia’s case, the time for that drastic action has long since arrived.

Removing a judge from the bench for expressing deeply held views will make some people on the left nervous and, as we saw when I floated a similar suggestion back in April, it will surely make many on the right apoplectic. Admittedly, it’s not something Congress has done before—but that’s only because the high court has never before harbored a member quite so imperious and intolerant as Antonin Scalia.

~

First, judges are supposed to be impartial. What does that mean? It doesn’t mean they are not supposed to have personal opinions; it means they are supposed to work very hard to avoid letting those opinions influence their legal judgments. For example, in the many years I have worked as a death-penalty lawyer, several Supreme Court justices, including most notably Justice Harry Blackmun, have said they personally oppose the death penalty, but that did not stop them from ruling against my clients and paving the way for their executions, because that is what they understood the law to dictate in those cases. (At the end of his tenure, more than 20 years after his dissent in Furman, Justice Blackmun did finally renounce the constitutionality of the death penalty—because, he wrote, it was a “delusion” to believe it could be reconciled with the Constitution.)

In other words, most justices work their hardest to put their personal viewpoints aside. Justice Scalia doesn’t even pretend to try.

You can read the entire article HERE.